X-Recipient:	archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
DomainKey-Signature:	a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id
	:list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post
	:list-help:sender:content-type:mime-version:subject:from
	:in-reply-to:date:content-transfer-encoding:message-id
	:references:to; q=dns; s=default; b=OqgyLab7ropzeaZ6g7dgHRXO3B3M
	ehghiteY1iVTE6PQhxOBB3Y94SL7v/pToNndLmMn2MqgDOERXbXTNrbLoAaUIlvn
	9rF8q2NJ2gTjtmNl2aHKS1GpeOIuCfZeqctLjk3VSkCGOd+dgLjZoT6kF+TLSrlc
	ttvlGIAS5A782Vk=
DKIM-Signature:	v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id
	:list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post
	:list-help:sender:content-type:mime-version:subject:from
	:in-reply-to:date:content-transfer-encoding:message-id
	:references:to; s=default; bh=nG6X75+D4fQGsgNLoET8CRXehnI=; b=xC
	HEetsgxpicMuHKstqIUQTiMzWH7WwB24R6wI8xTNYn/TnY7nRvZGKW/ppAS9j/PJ
	4eGngE3hrWZJ2Z40KkfDsc9+xDjLL9iGjlpj1H8UGdvo+FD4TAXi5X2N79itN1UI
	QASsIMrPLC9RHRq8AJVI3GsuB+X/EbuSzzI2424Q4=
Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Id:	<cygwin.cygwin.com>
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Authentication-Results:	sourceware.org; auth=none
X-Virus-Found:	No
X-Spam-SWARE-Status:	No, score=-0.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_40 autolearn=ham version=3.3.2
X-HELO:	tangentsoft.com
Mime-Version:	1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.1 \(1827\))
Subject:	Re: get rid of getpwent? (Was: cygwin-1.7.28 getpwent header declaration changes ?)
From:	Warren Young <warren AT etr-usa DOT com>
In-Reply-To:	<675717060.20140208044040@mtu-net.ru>
Date:	Sat, 8 Feb 2014 08:19:09 -0700
Message-Id:	<C1264DEE-1D5E-4F08-8DB5-D62A0EA4DCC0@etr-usa.com>
References:	<52F339CA DOT 5070305 AT gmail DOT com> <20140206090117 DOT GD2821 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de> <52F361C5 DOT 3000807 AT gmail DOT com> <20140206141321 DOT GI2821 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de> <52F40208 DOT 5030901 AT etr-usa DOT com> <20140207094917 DOT GN2821 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de> <52F53D7C DOT 5050201 AT etr-usa DOT com> <52F553AA DOT 9090500 AT cygwin DOT com> <52F561EE DOT 8090806 AT tiscali DOT co DOT uk> <52F56E92 DOT 3070309 AT cygwin DOT com> <675717060 DOT 20140208044040 AT mtu-net DOT ru>
To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
X-IsSubscribed:	yes
X-MIME-Autoconverted:	from quoted-printable to 8bit by delorie.com id s18FJVFh020108

On Feb 7, 2014, at 5:40 PM, Andrey Repin <anrdaemon AT yandex DOT ru> wrote:

>>> I thought the point of the programme /was/ to call getpwnam() a million
>>> times.

Precisely.

> In either case, repeatedly requesting the same record in a short amount of
> time will only test the system level cache.

If that were true, moving the requested record around in /etc/passwd wouldn’t cause a 6x spread in test results. That’s O(N) type behavior, whereas a cache approaches O(1).

If SAM uses a tree-structured DB, as I suspect, it will be some logarithmic function, like O(log2(N)).
--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple

- Raw text -